If descent with modification has led to the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, what, exactly, could be modified in those boneless organisms that would eventually give rise to boned vertebrates?

To those who would answer "the DNA gets modified" I expect some peer-reviewed science that shows modifying DNA can account for the morphological change required.

If descent with modification has led to the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, what, exactly, could be modified in those boneless organisms that would eventually give rise to boned vertebrates?

To those who would answer "the DNA gets modified" I expect some peer-reviewed science that shows modifying DNA can account for the morphological change required.

Thanks for making your expectations clear.

The transition from invertebrate to vertebrate forms involves a process known as biomineralization, the genetic basis of which is much studied and poorly understood. Attempting to wade through the massive volumes of data on the subject seems somewhat beyond our scope here but, briefly:

What we are talking about is a proposed exaptation from magnetite biomineralization (seen in Precambrian forms) to calcium biomineralization (the first clear evidence of which is the latest Precambrian invertebrate Cloudina).

Basically, there are two types of biomineralization, biologically induced, and matrix-mediated. Biologically induced minerals have crystal habits and chemical signatures indistinguishable from their inorganic counterparts. Organic activity aids the crystallization of these minerals, but the level of biochemical control for their formation is relatively low. On the other hand, matrix-mediated minerals are grown in a preformed organic framework (the matrix).

So there is evidence that some Precambrian organisms had the ability to incorporate minerals into their structures through matrix-mediated biomineralization; the big shift would have been the switch from iron to calcium.

Can you meet your own expectation by providing peer-reviewed science showing that such a thing is not possible?

So there is evidence that some Precambrian organisms had the ability to incorporate minerals into their structures through matrix-mediated biomineralization; the big shift would have been the switch from iron to calcium.

How does being able to incorporate minerals into a structure, develope joints, ligaments, etc....?

Can you meet your own expectation by providing peer-reviewed science showing that such a thing is not possible?

Can you provide a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating pigs can't fly? If you claim something is true, then the burden of proof is on you.

I think a few of you are looking for some sort of mathematical proof or some sort of critical experiment that allows only one possible interpretation. But rarely does science work like that. What we have is more like a crime scene with thousands of lines of evidence and we are trying to deduce what happened. Whatever hypothesis accounts for the most data with the fewest free parameters wins.

So let's consider this problem

If descent with modification has led to the diversity of life from some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, what, exactly, could be modified in those boneless organisms that would eventually give rise to boned vertebrates?

So what do we have as evidence?1. The fossil record shows single celled organisms in the lowest levels with some more complex organization in the precambrian, then a lot more organization in the Cambrian.

2. As far as calcification, we have some very very primitive teeth like structures from the conondonts of the late Cambrian. Moving towards the Silurian into the early Devonian (or around there) we start to exoskeletons with skulls and teeth, but no endoskeleton (e.g., no calcified vertebrae or ribs). By the late Devonian do we start to see calcified vertebrae.

3. If the rocks are dated, we see that the major changes are taking place over 200 million years. So even the smaller changes are occuring over something like 10 million years. That would mean changes over something like 10 million generations, or about .00001% per generation. So even in a 1000 generations, we expect less than a 1% change. So the dates suggest that this is all extremely gradual and nothing significant would be seen in just a handful of generations.

4. We have genetic evidence that suggests that the further back a common ancestor is (by the fossil record), the greater the difference in their DNA.

5. We have genetic manipulations that do seem to mutate organisms into earlier states which result in things like chickens with teeth and snakes with longer "legs". Why should it be so easy to create chickens with teeth?

So now, as a detective, you need to come up a theory that puts all these bits of evidence together. So what is the best theory one can produce. Can you do better than evolution? Of course, in reality there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. If you like flood theories, then you need to explain all the layers of sediment that don't look at all like flood runoff (layers of lava between sediment, huge layers of salt - underneath me dating to the Silurian, I have a 10 meter thick layer of solid salt that extends under most of upstate NY and Ohio). You need a whole new theory of radioactive decay. You need a theory of why genetic similary matches the fossil record so well. And the list goes on.

Science is involved in finding the best theory for the data. If you can find another theory that accounts for all the data with fewer "loose ends" then great. Propose it and then argue with the the scientific community as to whether the theory is consistent or inconsistent with the data.

But if we include only the 6 points shown above, what better theory is out there than the one we already have?

We have genetic manipulations that do seem to mutate organisms into earlier states which result in things like chickens with teeth and snakes with longer "legs". Why should it be so easy to create chickens with teeth?

Lets take this one.... The article does not claim to have mutated anything. What this guys claims to have done is to activate the genes to grow teeth that "were already present". This does nothing to solve the problem of the origin of the information, which is a major stumbling block for common descent.

Can you provide a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating pigs can't fly?Ã‚Â If you claim something is true, then the burden of proof is on you.

That choice of words suggests that you and I agree on at least one thing, which is that in the context of our casual discussions here, demanding that contributions take the form of peer-reviewed papers is a pretty cheap rhetorical device.

If you claim something is true, then the burden of proof is on you.

As has often been noted here, there is an important difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'. Scientific inquiry proceeds by the posing of hypotheses, followed by testing of those hypotheses by evidence. Falsification of a hypothesis is always more conclusive than failure to do so. I consider the burden to be shared by all who have an interest in the truth, and even those with other motives may make some contribution to the effort. If the explanations offerred by evolutionary theory are erroneous, establishing that by the evidence is actually the lighter burden, and I believe I have seen the claim made here that this burden has been met. Here, we see that claim implicitly in the form of a question, one which ultimately reduces to an argument from incredulity.

Evolutionary theory's answer to the question: "in what way, exactly, could X be modified so as to give rise to Y?" is: "one tiny step at a time, through the action of natural selection on random mutation". It is one thing to say: "I don't see how such a thing is possible", and quite another to say: "I can show you how such a thing is not possible".

I believe, along with the vast majority of biologists, that the evidence is overwhelming that such a thing is possible. Does this prove that it is possible? Absolutely not. As Aristarchus has pointed out, it's simply the explanation most consistent with the evidence, and its acceptance is provisional contingent upon its continuing to be so.

The transition from invertebrate to vertebrate forms involves a process known as biomineralization, the genetic basis of which is much studied and poorly understood. Attempting to wade through the massive volumes of data on the subject seems somewhat beyond our scope here but, briefly:

What we are talking about is a proposed exaptation from magnetite biomineralization (seen in Precambrian forms) to calcium biomineralization (the first clear evidence of which is the latest Precambrian invertebrate Cloudina).

Basically, there are two types of biomineralization, biologically induced, and matrix-mediated. Biologically induced minerals have crystal habits and chemical signatures indistinguishable from their inorganic counterparts. Organic activity aids the crystallization of these minerals, but the level of biochemical control for their formation is relatively low. On the other hand, matrix-mediated minerals are grown in a preformed organic framework (the matrix).

So there is evidence that some Precambrian organisms had the ability to incorporate minerals into their structures through matrix-mediated biomineralization; the big shift would have been the switch from iron to calcium.

Can you meet your own expectation by providing peer-reviewed science showing that such a thing is not possible?

First Cal provides more evidence of his/ her lack of understanding of how science works. THere wouldn't be a peer-reviewed article showing a negative. However there should be one supporting the claims made by evolutionists. Without such support those claims join the ranks of alchemy and geocentrism.

The ability to incorporate minerals- Just how did organisms get that ability? Then how did they know how to use that ability?

Talk about opening a bigger can of worms...

Cal:That choice of words suggests that you and I agree on at least one thing, which is that in the context of our casual discussions here, demanding that contributions take the form of peer-reviewed papers is a pretty cheap rhetorical device.

LoL! Only someone who can't support their claims via peer-review would say such a thing.

I think a few of you are looking for some sort of mathematical proof or some sort of critical experiment that allows only one possible interpretation. But rarely does science work like that. What we have is more like a crime scene with thousands of lines of evidence and we are trying to deduce what happened. Whatever hypothesis accounts for the most data with the fewest free parameters wins.

So let's consider this problemSo what do we have as evidence?1. The fossil record shows single celled organisms in the lowest levels with some more complex organization in the precambrian, then a lot more organization in the Cambrian.

2. As far as calcification, we have some very very primitive teeth like structures from the conondonts of the late Cambrian. Moving towards the Silurian into the early Devonian (or around there) we start to exoskeletons with skulls and teeth, but no endoskeleton (e.g., no calcified vertebrae or ribs). By the late Devonian do we start to see calcified vertebrae.

3. If the rocks are dated, we see that the major changes are taking place over 200 million years. So even the smaller changes are occuring over something like 10 million years. That would mean changes over something like 10 million generations, or about .00001% per generation. So even in a 1000 generations, we expect less than a 1% change. So the dates suggest that this is all extremely gradual and nothing significant would be seen in just a handful of generations.

4. We have genetic evidence that suggests that the further back a common ancestor is (by the fossil record), the greater the difference in their DNA.

5. We have genetic manipulations that do seem to mutate organisms into earlier states which result in things like chickens with teeth and snakes with longer "legs". Why should it be so easy to create chickens with teeth?

6. We also see that selective pressure can change gene frequency whether that is fruit fly wings or elephant tusks. http://www.news.com....2-13762,00.htmlSo now, as a detective, you need to come up a theory that puts all these bits of evidence together. So what is the best theory one can produce. Can you do better than evolution? Of course, in reality there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence. If you like flood theories, then you need to explain all the layers of sediment that don't look at all like flood runoff (layers of lava between sediment, huge layers of salt - underneath me dating to the Silurian, I have a 10 meter thick layer of solid salt that extends under most of upstate NY and Ohio). You need a whole new theory of radioactive decay. You need a theory of why genetic similary matches the fossil record so well. And the list goes on.

Science is involved in finding the best theory for the data. If you can find another theory that accounts for all the data with fewer "loose ends" then great. Propose it and then argue with the the scientific community as to whether the theory is consistent or inconsistent with the data.

But if we include only the 6 points shown above, what better theory is out there than the one we already have?

As I said many times now the fossil record is consistent with ID and theistic evolution. The FR does not falsify any Creation model.

We have never observed a population of single-celled organisms evolve into anything else but single celled organisms. That is after observing billions of generations- and that is what counts, generations.

Genetic AND morphological similarity can come about via convergent evolution. Common design and Common Creator also explain the similarities we do see.

A biological theory should concern itself with the biological evidence first. Once that is figured out only then should we assess the other evidence to see how it fits what we do know about biology.

IOW it is short sighted to believe in the ToE and then go about finding what you consider to be confirming evidence.

As I said many times now the fossil record is consistent with ID and theistic evolution. The FR does not falsify any Creation model.

Every bit of evidence can help restrict the class of possible theories. The fossil record is consistent with a model where there is "decent through modification". One might argue that the fossil record is consistent with a class of models where an intelligent designer steps in and tweaks the design of a few species every few million years. Maybe, but that is only one of many possible ID models. Some Christian biologists believe in this, but it isn't too popular. The fossil record is certainly not consistent with one worldwide flood.

We have never observed a population of single-celled organisms evolve into anything else but single celled organisms. That is after observing billions of generations- and that is what counts, generations.

3 billion years of single cell organisms x few trillion single cell organisms reproducing each year and out of all those, the movement from single cell to multicell cooperative systems needed to happen once or twice to start the system (actually even algae from cooperative bonds). It is not something that any biologist is going to expect to find in the lab within the liftetimes of a few scientists. No one expects this to be a likely event. But nothing in physics or biology makes this impossible.

Common design and Common Creator also explain the similarities we do see.

Then it is either a coincidence that the genetics match the fossil record, or God is stepping in to help things along every so often. Again, that at least restricts the set of possible theories.

A biological theory should concern itself with the biological evidence first. Once that is figured out only then should we assess the other evidence to see how it fits what we do know about biology.

I am not sure where you picked up this sort of thinking. We should never restrict our lines of evidence. Every scientific theory leans on the other sciences whenever possible. If chemistry or physics or the fossil record provide evidence, then those should be used. Good theories commonly have evidence coming in from many fields.

First Cal provides more evidence of his/ her lack of understanding of how science works.

His.

There wouldn't be a peer-reviewed article showing a negative.

Do tell.

The ability to incorporate minerals- Just how did organisms get that ability?

For the host of biomaterials engineers and nanotech researchers who are currently working in this area, perhaps the more relevant question is: "how are we going to get it?"

First, let's consider this googled snippet:---------------------------"Scientists and engineers have long been inspired by the beautiful structures and functional properties of the materials formed within living organisms. In particular, the hard tissues of organisms (e.g. bone, teeth, mollusk shells) are composed of minerals that are typically in close association with an organic polymeric phase, and thus are biocomposites. The mineral crystals that are formed by the organisms, called biominerals, frequently have shapes that are very different from the crystal habits produced inorganically. In fact, the biomineral crystals may not have a defined crystal habit at all; instead the crystals may be "molded" into elaborate structures which have non-faceted crystal surfaces, wherein the "mold" is a vesicular compartment within which the crystal is formed. Of course biominerals cannot be melted at physiological temperature; thus this ability to "mold" (i.e. grow and stabilize) such energetically unfavorable crystalline structures within the physiological environment has intrigued the materials engineering community. In particular, there is a demand for low-temperature processing techniques with environmentally friendly materials, and particularly for biomaterials applications in which it is desirable to incorporate thermally sensitive organic and/or biological components into materials (e.g. bioreceptor proteins, enzymes for biocatalysis, live cells, etc.). The control of crystal shape is only one of the many puzzling features of biomineralization. Overall, it is seen that control over biomineral properties can be accomplished at a myriad of levels, including the regulation of particle size, shape, crystal orientation, polymorphic structure, defect texture, and particle assembly. In the latter case, cellular processes enable control in both the spatial and temporal domain in such a way that hierarchical composite structures can be built which increase the toughness and durability of the material, which is invaluable for load-bearing materials such as bones, teeth, mollusk shells, etc.."---------------------------http://chem1.snu.ac....biomineral1.htm

The evolutionary hypothesis would run along the lines of a mutation in some ancient organism which, quite by accident, resulted in some compartmented structure that caused an unusual formation of some mineral (most likely magnetite). This mineral formation increased the reproductive success of the organism by providing it with better rigidity in some structure, a property which the organism's progeny inherited along with the protein-based compartmented structure which produced it.

Then how did they know how to use that ability?

How does a round rock know how to roll downhill?

LoL! Only someone who can't support their claims via peer-review would say such a thing.

Illustrating my point. Only someone whose debating arsenal contains little beyond evasion, deflection, quote mining, vacuous dictionary lookups, and weak attempts at character assasination would say such a thing. I'm interested in hearing your refutations, based on actual substance and on your own powers of logic and reason. I consistently see so little of either that I continue to wonder why you bother to come here at all. I'm not interested in engaging in URL wars.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 21 2005, 08:48 AM)As I said many times now the fossil record is consistent with ID and theistic evolution. The FR does not falsify any Creation model.

AristarchusEvery bit of evidence can help restrict the class of possible theories. The fossil record is consistent with a model where there is "decent through modification".

But the fossil record is not consistent with descent with modification as there isn't anything in a bone-less organism that could be modified to give rise to bones. At least there isn't any evidence for that.

Aristarchus:One might argue that the fossil record is consistent with a class of models where an intelligent designer steps in and tweaks the design of a few species every few million years. Maybe, but that is only one of many possible ID models. Some Christian biologists believe in this, but it isn't too popular. The fossil record is certainly not consistent with one worldwide flood.

THe FR doesn't have to be consistent with one world-wide flood. Death & fossilization suyrely occurred before and after the flood.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 21 2005, 08:48 AM)We have never observed a population of single-celled organisms evolve into anything else but single celled organisms. That is after observing billions of generations- and that is what counts, generations.

Aristarchus:3 billion years of single cell organisms x few trillion single cell organisms reproducing each year and out of all those, the movement from single cell to multicell cooperative systems needed to happen once or twice to start the system (actually even algae from cooperative bonds). It is not something that any biologist is going to expect to find in the lab within the liftetimes of a few scientists. No one expects this to be a likely event. But nothing in physics or biology makes this impossible.

Nothing in physics, chemistry, biology or genetics says it is possible. That is what is required. Some evidence that shows it is not only possible but plausible. So far no one has been able to present such evidence.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 21 2005, 08:48 AM)Common design and Common Creator also explain the similarities we do see.

Aristarchus:Then it is either a coincidence that the genetics match the fossil record, or God is stepping in to help things along every so often. Again, that at least restricts the set of possible theories.

How can genetics match the fossil record when fossils don't leave behind genetic evidence? Similarities in genetics and morphology can be accounted for by convergent evolution. That is a fact.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 21 2005, 08:48 AM)A biological theory should concern itself with the biological evidence first. Once that is figured out only then should we assess the other evidence to see how it fits what we do know about biology.

Aristarchus:I am not sure where you picked up this sort of thinking.

Logic & reasoning 101. If organisms can't evolve to the extent evos want us to believe then there is obviously another explanation for the fossil record. As I said before using this circumstantial evidence relies heavily on the initial belief/ assumption being true. However there comes a time when that initial belief/ assumption must be tested objectively. The ToE lacks that.

Aristarchus: We should never restrict our lines of evidence. Every scientific theory leans on the other sciences whenever possible. If chemistry or physics or the fossil record provide evidence, then those should be used. Good theories commonly have evidence coming in from many fields.

One more time- the fossils can't tell us anything about a mechanism. Lab testing amplifies the point of genetic homeostasis- that is a populations resistance to change.

As I said many times now the fossil record is consistent with ID and theistic evolution. The FR does not falsify any Creation model.

The fossil record has played a large role in currrent evolutionary theory and continues to do so. I have yet to hear of a creation model consistent with the fossil record. If you can point me to one, that would be appreciated. Basic features of the record have been noted here many times:

Single cells life forms on the bottomMore complex sponge-like in the precambrianSimple invertebrate higher up in the precambrian (all currently extinct)Higher up: Cartilagenous fishStill higher: boney fish etcOn top of these layers we find large layers of salt, sand dunes, very large volcanic eruptions, forests, dinosaur nests Etc etc.Top layers mammalsI would really enjoy seeing a creationist model that gives you those results.

But the fossil record is not consistent with descent with modification as there isn't anything in a bone-less organism that could be modified to give rise to bones. At least there isn't any evidence for that.

There is decent evidence for cartilagenous fish as precursors to boney fish.

THe FR doesn't have to be consistent with one world-wide flood. Death & fossilization suyrely occurred before and after the flood.

Sounds fascinating. Can you show me evidence of that? Can you show me any fossils from the "pre-flood world". I would love to see where those are. Are they above or below the trilobites?

Nothing in physics, chemistry, biology or genetics says it is possible. That is what is required. Some evidence that shows it is not only possible but plausible. So far no one has been able to present such evidence.

So far, the scientific community as a whole thinks this is plausible. Creationists think it is not. Sounds like standoff for at least a few more years.

Common design and Common Creator also explain the similarities we do see.How can genetics match the fossil record when fossils don't leave behind genetic evidence? Similarities in genetics and morphology can be accounted for by convergent evolution. That is a fact.

Genetics differences and mutation rates allow an estimate of how far back two species shared a common ancestor. This has been found to show very good agreement to the fossil record.

One more time- the fossils can't tell us anything about a mechanism. Lab testing amplifies the point of genetic homeostasis- that is a populations resistance to change.

Unfortunately, the scientific community disagrees with you here. There are a few thousand papers currently in the literature relating the mechanism of evolution to the fossil record. Such papers cover a wide range of issues such as the role of S@xual selection in evolution, the speed of evolution (I believe, you once brought this one up yourself), the relation between ontogeny and phyologeny (e.g., does evolution tend to proceed by modifying the last stages of development? - this is even studied in trilobites). The role of large extinction events in speciation is also a big issue in understanding evolutionary processes. The list is rather long.

So yes, our current theories regarding the "mechanism" of evolution do depend on the fossil record. Here's a random link to a typical paper in this field (I am sure I can find a better one).http://paleobiol.geo...stract/25/2/158

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 22 2005, 08:49 AM)As I said many times now the fossil record is consistent with ID and theistic evolution. The FR does not falsify any Creation model.

Aristarchus:The fossil record has played a large role in currrent evolutionary theory and continues to do so.

I know that but that doesn't mean that way of thinking is correct.

Aristarchus: I have yet to hear of a creation model consistent with the fossil record.

And I have yet to see any biological or genetic evidence that would substantiate the claim of evolutionists.

Aristarchus: If you can point me to one, that would be appreciated.

Ditto.

AristarchusBasic features of the record have been noted here many times:

Single cells life forms on the bottomMore complex sponge-like in the precambrianSimple invertebrate higher up in the precambrian (all currently extinct)Higher up: Cartilagenous fishStill higher: boney fish etcOn top of these layers we find large layers of salt, sand dunes, very large volcanic eruptions, forests, dinosaur nests Etc etc.Top layers mammalsI would really enjoy seeing a creationist model that gives you those results.

I would really enjoy reading some scientific evidence from biology or genetics that shows such transformations are possible.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 22 2005, 08:49 AM)But the fossil record is not consistent with descent with modification as there isn't anything in a bone-less organism that could be modified to give rise to bones. At least there isn't any evidence for that.

Aristarchus:There is decent evidence for cartilagenous fish as precursors to boney fish.

Actually there are only fossils that may show cart fish lived before bony fish. There isn't any biological or genetic evidence that shows cart fish can evolve into bony fish.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 22 2005, 08:49 AM)THe FR doesn't have to be consistent with one world-wide flood. Death & fossilization suyrely occurred before and after the flood.

Aristarchus:Sounds fascinating. Can you show me evidence of that? Can you show me any fossils from the "pre-flood world". I would love to see where those are. Are they above or below the trilobites?

That is what science is for. If Creationists knew all the answers then we wouldn't need science.

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 22 2005, 08:49 AM)Nothing in physics, chemistry, biology or genetics says it is possible. That is what is required. Some evidence that shows it is not only possible but plausible. So far no one has been able to present such evidence.

Aristarchus:So far, the scientific community as a whole thinks this is plausible. Creationists think it is not. Sounds like standoff for at least a few more years.

What is this "scientific community"? And what is the biological and genetic evidence that supports their inference? And why does a prominent Italian geneticist disagree with them?

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 22 2005, 08:49 AM)Common design and Common Creator also explain the similarities we do see.How can genetics match the fossil record when fossils don't leave behind genetic evidence? Similarities in genetics and morphology can be accounted for by convergent evolution. That is a fact.

Aristarchus:Genetics differences and mutation rates allow an estimate of how far back two species shared a common ancestor. This has been found to show very good agreement to the fossil record.

Then why has an Italian geneticist wrote a book showing that what you say is wrong? Should people believe you or the geneticist?

The book is called Why is a Fly not a Horse? by Giuseppe Sermonti.

Did you know that leaf insects appear in the fossil record before leaves do?

QUOTE(John Paul @ Jul 22 2005, 08:49 AM)One more time- the fossils can't tell us anything about a mechanism. Lab testing amplifies the point of genetic homeostasis- that is a populations resistance to change.

Aristarchus:Unfortunately, the scientific community disagrees with you here. There are a few thousand papers currently in the literature relating the mechanism of evolution to the fossil record. Such papers cover a wide range of issues such as the role of S@xual selection in evolution, the speed of evolution (I believe, you once brought this one up yourself), the relation between ontogeny and phyologeny (e.g., does evolution tend to proceed by modifying the last stages of development? - this is even studied in trilobites). The role of large extinction events in speciation is also a big issue in understanding evolutionary processes. The list is rather long.

Speciation isn't being debated. The scientific community exists only in some people's minds, and by reading Dr. Theobald's 29 evidences for macroevolution I am as close to 100% sure that no one understands the mechanism(s) involved for the alleged transformtions you think are observed in the FR.

Aristarchus:So yes, our current theories regarding the "mechanism" of evolution do depend on the fossil record. Here's a random link to a typical paper in this field (I am sure I can find a better one).http://paleobiol.geo...stract/25/2/158

What was supposed to be in that link to support your claim? Fossils don't give DNA. Without that DNA there is no way to determine a mechanism. That is one reason why Dr. Theobald left out the mechanism part of his essay.

The first land plants with vascular structure are found in the Silurian (438 million to 408 million years ago).By the time we reach the Devonian (400 mya) we have a rich variety of plant life - tree ferns etc. The first seed plants are found towards the end of the Devonian.

The first land plants with vascular structure are found in the Silurian (438 million to 408 million years ago).By the time we reach the Devonian (400 mya) we have a rich variety of plant life - tree ferns etc. The first seed plants are found towards the end of the Devonian.

If you are not sure of a definition, just ask. A lot of us here are happy to help. But when you make these strong claims as though they are well established facts, it will lead the reader to wonder whether all your "facts" come from similar sources.

I would also enjoy seeing your fossil stick insect. Could you point me to the source please?

Drawing on the advances made in molecular, cell, and developmental biology over the past 20 years, authors Kirschner (cell biology, Harvard Medical School) and Gerhart (molecular and cell biology, U. of California-Berkeley) examine the extraordinary evolutionary diversification of multicellular animals over the past 600 million years, confronting at once the paradox of deep cellular and molecular conservation and the stability of metazoan body plans.

The authors...Kirschner is the Carl Walter Professor and Founding Chair of the Department of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School. A relentless advocate for experimental quantification, Kirschner and his longtime collaborator John Gerhart published their book on evolutionary theory in 1997, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, that attempted to square the new molecular biology with the Darwinian model.

Drawing on the advances made in molecular, cell, and developmental biology over the past 20 years, authors Kirschner (cell biology, Harvard Medical School) and Gerhart (molecular and cell biology, U. of California-Berkeley) examine the extraordinary evolutionary diversification of multicellular animals over the past 600 million years, confronting at once the paradox of deep cellular and molecular conservation and the stability of metazoan body plans.

The authors...Kirschner is the Carl Walter Professor and Founding Chair of the Department of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School. A relentless advocate for experimental quantification, Kirschner and his longtime collaborator John Gerhart published their book on evolutionary theory in 1997, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, that attempted to square the new molecular biology with the Darwinian model.

This is funny because biologists still do not know what makes a fly a fly, a cat a cat or a horse a horse. We are fully aware of what makes a rose red, what makes a dwarf a dwarf and what goes wrong to cause genetic diseases. But all we know about the organisms as a whole is that kittens are born when a female cat mates with a tom.

The bottom line is that NO ONE knows if the alleged transformations claimed by evolutionists to have occurred are evn possible via genetic mutations.

I apologize for not being more specific on the leaf insect post:

The leaf insect allegedly modeled itself after the Latifoliae which appears in the FR well after the insect. IOW look up protophasmids (the insects) and then phanerograms & Latifoliae.